Poll: I accept the premise that we are born believers because of evolution.
Yes.
No.
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  All were committed Christians whose faith drove their scientific research. You won't likely find one source naming all the scientists who were Christians that isn't a Christian source because, I mean, why would you? But Dawkins has acknowledged in at least one debate - I forget which one - that most of the founders of modern science were Christians. He just disputes the claim that they were motivated to do science because of their faith. But Dawkins is wrong.

That is merely your opinion, unsupported by any evidence.

Quote:And, as we all saw in the God Delusion, Dawkins is not known for his historical scholarship.

What did 'we' see?
You really need to back up your proclamations with evidence, citations, and/or examples because otherwise you're just an opinionated blowhard.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 03:59 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
The Thinking Atheist, as I'm certain you're aware, is the name of Seth's podcast, and thus the website.

But, wow, aren't you the first to make that snarky comment about how much thinking we're doing. Rolleyes

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-09-2016, 04:11 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:57 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  It's a wonder this message board is called "The Thinking Atheist." I don't see much thinking going on from most of you.

The irony is that every time a believer walks in here, and their ideas aren't accepted with open arms, they say this obvious joke. I should start taking a tally.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
17-09-2016, 04:18 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
For Fucks Sake, would you learn how to use this forum properly? You expect to be taken seriously and you can't even use the quote feature.

(17-09-2016 03:07 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  LOL! Cute but that's REALLY begging the question - not to mention patently untrue. I'll assume you were kidding. Thanks for the laugh though. Smile

Piss off. Drinking Beverage

(17-09-2016 03:07 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  He used to but he's changed it now. See the link below at 01:41:00. (I'll accept your humble apology when you see I was right. Know this: I never make claims I can't support):

You arrogant fucking ass. You have been repeatedly and soundly refuted on every point you try to make. You refuse to admit any wrong even when cited and linked sources discredit you. You quotemine, you ignore proven science, and you lie through your fucking teeth.

And you expect an apology when someone doubts you??? FUCK OFF.

(17-09-2016 03:07 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Wrong. He insulted the Pope by writing a book called "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" and putting the views of the Pope in the mouth of a fictional character he named Simplicio.

You lying-ass miserable piece of fucking shit.

THE BOOK IS ABOUT THE COPERNICAN AND THE PTOLEMAIC SYSTEMS.

You dishonest fuck. How about you admit that you are wrong? That's the third lie, just on this one subject.

wikipedia

Quote:The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo) is a 1632 Italian-language book by Galileo Galilei comparing the Copernican system with the traditional Ptolemaic system.

And to wrap it all up...

(17-09-2016 03:07 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Darwin said it in a letter to William Graham dated July 3rd, 1881.

Actually, yes, the primary uses of those quotes are for that purpose exactly: Darwin's mythical deathbed conversion and fictitious doubts on evolution. That's not what he was referring to of course, but everyone skips that part. Darwin professed agnosticism and had no use for organized religion. The quotes refer to the possibility of a creative deity.

The letter in question

(See, that's how citations work. You're welcome.)

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
17-09-2016, 04:24 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:57 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  It's a wonder this message board is called "The Thinking Atheist." I don't see much thinking going on from most of you.

Considering how foreign the subject is to you, I'm not surprised that you fail to recognize it.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
17-09-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Quote:All were committed Christians whose faith drove their scientific research.

Can you substantiate that claim Randy. Did you ask them all, do you have declarations that all their work is entirely due to or dedicated to the greater glory of god, or something?

Nothing to do with the basic curiosity, the need to understand, that all normal humans exhibit regardless of the culture into which they are born? A trait all to often curtailed by over restrictive disciplines applied by the authorities - mostly church inspired. Mean to say, we can't have the common man, or woman, thinking for themselves. Any reslly bright ones will be co-opted into church service and indoctrinated so we csn control them. Until quite recently the churches were the underlying power in the land - you just had to be religious (or very rich and powerful) to get a good education or even to survive.

Newton was not above some very dodgy alchemy that would have got him in serious trouble it seems.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:19 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 06:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  If someone uses the term "-path" or "-pathy" to describe a medical term, then he is either incredibly ignorant not to know about pathology which is (quote wiki).


or

he deliberately chose this word but is backpedaling now.


Again it makes no sense to me that someone claims to be educated enough on a scientific topic to write a complete book about this on one hand, but on the other hand he pretends to be not informed enough to give a proper -as in unbiased- name for the condition he is trying to discuss in his book. Thats borderline ridiculous.

Or

He is backpedaling

You can view it as backpedaling. But it could be genuine error on my part. I'm willing to change the term if it does not convey my intended meaning. But as Matt Dillahunty continually points out, words don't have meanings, they have usages. If I use it this way, there will be no problem as long as I define it. Still much better and more honest than what Krauss did with the word "nothing."

What's interesting is that everyone takes offense at the thought of atheism being an -opathy but have no problem calling theism an -opathy, a delusion or a mental illness. Don't you think that since about 95 percent of the world of over 7 billion people currently believes in some sort of god, it's a little arrogant for the other 5 percent to claim they are all deluded?

And here you are (once again) misrepresenting (and Gloucester misunderstood him) Dillahunty. And please dont hurt my intellect by claiming to be genuine. You have been stupid and arrogant enough to leave a trail of written statements that demonstrate your general disingennuity, and several posters have pointed this out, in detail.

Words have meaning, a meaning we give them, and no inherent meaning. We imbue words with meaning. If the whole world would agree that "apple" is referring to a round shaped orange fruit, then so be it. But its all about the agreement. Did you bother to agree with anyone on your usage of words?

Clearly not:
Quote:If I use it this way, there will be no problem as long as I define it.
You however think you can redfine words for yourself. Who do you think gave you the right to define words and their meaning? Why do you think anyone else should give a damn what you think something means? Just like you dont seem to give a shit what everyone else thinks about your definitions. Thats not how social contracts work, and thats not how language evolved. You like all of your ideas are directed backwards. If it was for you we would be going back to caves, wearing fur and everyone having his own pesonally-defined language. You claimed ot be a journalist, so i should not need to explain basic shit of your profession to you, like you should not need to explain basic electronics to me. I am beginning to wonder what kind of journalist background you actually have.

You are becoming antisocial (by re-defining words, and ultimately even re-defining reality by absurd rejections of well established sciences like evolution), because you value your god higher than your fellow humans. Its the result of you having to lie for him regarding evolution and everyhing else. You have to keep your delusion up that he even exists in spite of all the overwhelming evidence.

Like i just said in my previous post. You give a shit about your fellow human beings. You define words as you need to use them to support your disingenuous ideas. Why should anyone agree with your usage of words, right? You are entitled to re-define everything to your needs. and your needs are: "My god does exist". Or is there anything that would convince you otherwise?

I got breaking news to you: You can re-define everything for yourself, just like our current punchingbag Kerim does. But that makes you (just like him) an idiot and outsider to mankind. Have fun in your own little bubble, but please dont try to spread your bullshit like a contagion. Unlike you i am trying to be a productive member of the society i am living in. I like to give something back for what profit i take from society. You are free to just sit there idle and waste your time with believing in bullshit and be a burden otherwise. I am willing to drag you through your miserable and pointless life, by providing something that makes it more worthwhile to live (i am making your car safer). But I also would prefer you not insulting me with being a genetic deficit being while i do so. One shouldnt bite the hand that feeds him.


Quote:Don't you think that since about 95 percent of the world of over 7 billion people currently believes in some sort of god, it's a little arrogant for the other 5 percent to claim they are all deluded?
Argumentum ad populum, that the best you got? Really? Since when was the truth of a statement determined by the number of people believing in it?
Oh, and isnt it funny, that those 7 billion people belive in so many differnet gods? Even christians themselves cant agree amongst themselves. How many...40k denominations, and if you would ask individuals, you may find out its actually millions of different Yahwehs they believe in, Almost as if.....they are all dreaming something up.
Evolution by the way doesnt give a shit if you believe it in. Most probably you or your family has taken medicine or eaten some genetically changed food that has been made more resistant to parasites or disease,. All this based on the knowledge we ahve gained in thanks to the theory of evolution and its application to our daily life.
You however, you are writing books in an effort do discredit what is making your life worth living.

Thats how useless your existence is. No, you are even trying to be damaging to society, thats how deplorable you are.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
17-09-2016, 04:58 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:55 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  All were committed Christians whose faith drove their scientific research.

What motivated them to do their research is completely irrelevant. What matters is how they did the research and whether they allowed their religion to define the results or they let the evidence define the results. I don't care if they were motivated to try to better understand Jehovah, Jesus, Vishnu, or Zeus as long as they left their beliefs at the laboratory door.

If the results would have been the same had somebody else done the work then what motivated them does not matter. Or are you trying to claim that people who aren't xian can't be motivated to learn more about the universe we inhabit?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
17-09-2016, 05:05 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
First and foremost, I nominate EK for TTA Fiskmaster General. That was above and beyond the call of duty!


(17-09-2016 10:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Original source, in all it’s credulous and ignoble glory.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

Quote:If you do not believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth, then it is because you've allowed someone to educate you out of your faith in God's word.

You know, things that are factually accurate, don’t need to be worried about people learning more about them. Do you know who does fear the spread of information? Scammers, huckster, frauds, and charlatans. Guess which ones you sound more like with that kind of intellectual fear mongering? If your religion is true, why are you so afraid that it cannot stand up to closer scrutiny?

That may be one thing he actually got right, but maybe not as intended. Your response is dead on and it is amazing to me that anybody can view being educated about something is bad.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
17-09-2016, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2016 05:29 PM by Gloucester.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(17-09-2016 03:57 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  It's a wonder this message board is called "The Thinking Atheist." I don't see much thinking going on from most of you.

"Thinking," like your "'thinking" in quoting sources carefully chosen to support your own concepts (even when they are shown to be in error) and misquoting or quoting out of context those who actually oppose those concepts? As in continually making unsubstantiated claims and statements in support of your concepts.

So far your writings have displayed no more originality than ours, each of us can only really work in this field drawing on external knowledge - the trick is to make sure thst knowledge can be supported by fact. You fail.

You merely assemble things, changing facts that do not support you into fictions that do.. There are three histories of this area that perpetuate false information because each subsequent author copied the errors of the previous ones, not wishing to challenge their "authority". That is the danger of mere assemblage. The true investigator questions and verifies even those things that support his theory and notes those that cannot be so verified.

Edited for clarity.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gloucester's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: